Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-18, 15:03
Safe Zone: OPENING SOON

Mass04

Members
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Noobie

Account information

  • Whitelisted YES

1 Follower

About Mass04

  1. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    It was assumed by others who responded that the smaller group would actually be able to get into viable cover before popping shots and that's how anyone else discussed it. And again, the reason this was a suggestion in the first place is due to warning shots being considered attempted KOS, which was something the thread aimed to change. Ofcourse you're completely right, just again, it was the point of the thread to change it. Doesn't matter anyway. There's only the slightest possible way the suggestion could be tweaked as to have some amount of viability but I can't see this working anymore. Feel free to look at my other suggestion thread and give me your thoughts on those though. Just ignore a) and d).
  2. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    I gotta ask, did you read the scenario? A larger group of people were hostile to you and then start chasing after you? Realistically you'd be worried for your life. Didn't quite get this part. The point of warning shots is to, you know, show someone you will shoot them if they kept after you. I do understand if you meant "Now I've had to take cover and I've no idea if I can turn around and walk away without getting shot in the back." That's fair enough. "they would need to let the larger group get into VoIP range, which gives up the range advantage they had." To be fair, it doesn't make sense because you didn't take into account whats underlined, from the third line of the first paragraph I wrote at the start of the thread. Thank you for responding but it feels like you didn't really pay any attention to what I wrote. Gonna be closing this thread (or just leaving it be, I've no idea how to close it personally) since it's been discussed in my other suggestion thread and the threat of bullet richochet negates any possibility of this being a type of initiation. Thanks for your responses.
  3. Ways of Initiation?

    You can probably infer from my post that I prefer more detail but this is fine all the same. I'd ask you to explain but I already know about bullet richochet. Could you expand your thoughts on this more, please? It would definitely need some specific guidelines on what constitutes as an okay situation to initiate on behalf of the group. As far as I'm aware, it's not allowed though. Could you correct me with some references or tell me why you agree? Yeah, I edited d) to point this out, I'll leave it in there so people know what you were talking about, though. Thanks for your reply, I hope you post again to expand on b) and c).
  4. Ways of Initiation?

    In regards to option c, I've had people repeatedly tell me that it would be NVFL in such a situation. If this IS the case, then I'd want to focus on that more, see if it can be changed. If not, then more people need to know. I'm guessing it's entirely situational though Other than that I understand your rebuttals to my other three options (I forgot about needing a frequency to contact people on TS). I have had the first three of your suggestions said before but the 4th is new, could be an option. Again though, the person would have to willingly comply and could easily be giving themselves up for capture, which is what we're trying to avoid right now. Thank you for your input, the 4th idea is new and definitely something practical.
  5. Ways of Initiation?

    Was going to post two different suggestions in one thread but I thought I'd keep them separate so people can clearly indicate their like/dislike with the rating system. Please keep an eye out for my second suggestion. Posted other threads in this light, but we need ways of initiating at range, due to the VoIP letting us down and our lack of ways to initiate. Here's the scenario: a smaller group has received hostilities from a larger group and have then found the larger group to be stalking them, actively following them but at a distance that VoIP doesn't reach. They have three options: Run away, call for back-up or surrender. The fourth option, turn around and warn them not to follow, isn't possible because as soon as you do, they can initiate and, being utterly outnumbered, you have to give up, since fighting back would be NVFL. I've compiled some ideas, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, that can remedy this situation and give the fourth option to smaller groups: _________________________________________________________________IGNORE THIS SECTION___________________________________________________________________ a) Firing bullets at the ground or objects near the stalkers as an indication that you will shoot them if they continue to follow. Then they can keep following, turn around and leave or begin to fire back, starting a gunfight. (I've been made aware that bullets richochet so that makes this suggestion moot but I'll leave it in so people know what it was.) PRO: When written into the rules, can be considered a clear indication of your intentions, since firing a specific amount of bullets (1 or 2) close to the people stalking you is difficult to do accidentally. PRO: Allows the smaller group to initiate at range, allowing them an engagement distance they can take advantage of, evening the odds between them and their pursuers. CON: If the group members are unco-ordinated, multiple participants could fire at once or fire too many times, possibly leading to confusion. CON: This is currently considered Attempted KOS as it's seen as attempting to shoot someone without initiating (A rule change would need to be made). _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b) Leaving a person behind to initiate on behalf of the group. PRO: Allows the other members of the group to gain an advantageous position incase a fight starts. PRO: Is an unambiguous initiation perfectly inline with the current initiation rules. CON: The person left will likely be initiated on and it would be probably considered NVFL for them to fight back. CON: A solved report I read a while ago talked about `looking after yourself even if you have friends overwatching you` and putting yourself in that dangerous situation and initiating on them can be considered NVFL. c) Setting up an ambush. PRO: You get the element of surprise (until you initiate) and the ability to surround your foes from an advantageous position. PRO: You become a legitimate threat to the larger group, as you'd have a better capability of killing them if they didn't comply. CON: So far I've labelled this as NVFL and nobody has corrected me on this, since the idea is that if the group largely outnumbers you, it's NVFL to initiate at that close range, even with advantage. CON: Difficult to consider what consists of good ambush positions. It could be disputed as NVFL if the cover the ambushers use isn't good enough. ___________________________________________________________________IGNORE THIS SECTION_____________________________________________________________________ d) Initiating over radio chatter (TeamSpeak). (I've been made aware that this isn't possible due to needing the frequency the other group uses but I'll leave it in so people know what it was.) PRO: Negates the short-range portion of initiation. PRO: Can be used to give initiation from a safe distance and hiding place without alerting the stalkers to your positions. CON: Currently not allowed, as initiations over TS need to be agreed to by the other party, who may not even be on TeamSpeak to begin with. CON: Requires someone in the group to stop and alt+tab to TS, find the stalking party (if the group even knows who they are specifically) and message the leader. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please give your opinions on each of these, ask any questions you might have and post any other suggestions you might have aswell. There was also the idea of throwing something like a smoke grenade as an initiation but that requires the item to begin with. AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT ALL OF THIS IS IN THE CONTEXT OF A LARGER GROUP OF PLAYERS STALKING A SMALLER GROUP WITH WHOM THEY HAVE HAD PREVIOUS HOSTILITIES, MAKING THE SMALLER GROUP CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY. You're also completely able to disagree with all of this because "you should comply to create RP" but that doesn't really help the smaller group in this situation, so please refrain from making your post just that.
  6. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    I see this as a strange midpoint because it's technically allowed but also technically isn't valid. The idea being you'd have to initiate to get someone to back off at range because by the time they get close enough to engage, you've already lost. Firing rounds into the air definitely displays some gunfire without the possibility of harming someone but, by RP standards, shooting the air doesn't mean "Leave me alone", nor does it have any clear indication of what you're trying to do. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I made this. From a realistic point of view I completely agree but that's not the case in the RP. In a real scenario, if you ran towards gunfire and got capped by a guy who may or may not have meant to shoot you, that was your idiocy. In this, you can file a report with the potential to make that guy temporarily or permanently disappear. I'm not bagging on the rules or community by any means, it's just small groups currently have no consistent ways to defend themselves against larger threats as would be entirely possible in real life. Didn't quite get this part. If it was a dig at the avoidRP rule then fair enough On a serious note though, this also opens up roads for radio chatter RP to sort out misunderstandings and make amends, but can also increase the hostility between groups which would later induce RP that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Instead of a small group getting robbed by a larger group and the larger group later laughing and taunting at them when they meet again as they go past, the smaller group can defend themselves and escape the situation, making the larger group angry and wanting some payback, pursuing them at a later time. It's really how you look at it. People have issues with this because they're a stickler for the current rules, people like it because it gives power to smaller groups, people dislike it because it dis-empowers larger groups, people think its stupid because "gunfire can never be used as initiation." Mostly valid points all around and I wouldn't disagree with most of them, though the problem remains that smaller groups in this situation have literally almost no options in the matter when, in a realistic scenario, there would be multiple options, like setting up ambushes, using the long range and cover gained to their advantage, etc. but all of these advantages go right out the window when you need to initiate and have the current NVFL rules. If a way to initiate at range will never happen, there'd need to be changes to the NVFL rules to make it so that a smaller group can take on a larger group without getting reported after. It's something I've been thinking about the past few weeks. Edit: Forgot to say, thanks for your input.
  7. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    I'm sure I've said this but this is one of the reasons I've been thinking about this topic. It's quite a common event to be outnumbered in this game and yet there's nothing written on this subject other than "surrender," "call back-up to ambush" and "run." If you have any ideas on a way to initiate long-range, please post it. I've been thinking for a while on this topic, trying to come up with a viable suggestion that, if added, would have the properly intended effect without being misconstrued as something different. There aren't really many viable ways, each with all of their own issues, but there might be something else nobody has thought of, yet.
  8. Camp Endeavour is now Hiring [OPEN]

    *Knocking a fresh battery into the radio, Cotton transmits his own message.* "If it's, uhh, alright with you and-uh-your lot, I might turn up to the camp one of the days and l-look around. I'm a Medic so if anyones needin' stitches and I'm there, I'd-I'd help out." *Dead air goes on for a couple more seconds before he speaks again.* "I, uh, tend to carry a lot of supplies for other ailments too. Probably won't trade them away, just lookin' to help people out in my spare time." *The transmission cuts off.*
  9. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    Yeah, I agree with everything you said about a solo player. This thread was dedicated to having a group of people but still being outnumbered, since in a realistic scenario you could set up an ambush with multiple participants, which is much more difficult to do by yourself.
  10. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    I understand that. I'd still like to point out that part of the premise of this thread is to avoid being captured. People will have different opinions of if avoiding capture is badRP but realistically your character won't want to be in that situation in the first place.
  11. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    Of course, just the "rule to not get held up" comment was a bit silly, you know? Glad I posted this though, got some other ideas and new inspirations to figure out a different way to initiate without the smaller group losing the advantages they have. The "leaving a guy behind to initiate" is probably the most valid idea yet but it needs a polishing so it doesn't infract NVFL. I'll have a think about it and maybe post another suggestion. Before that though, everyone can please feel free to keep posting their opinions on this. We might get more ideas.
  12. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    There is a prevalent fear in the community that you will be shot in the circumstances provided. I personally don't know how valid of a fear that is in this community but I can assume it is if I apply common knowledge of this game to the fact that people have brought it up before. That and the reports. Just a little humor in that some reports don't give you much hope in your expectations when playing this game. Hey man, I respected your other posts and the points you've brought up, I appreciate you commenting your opinion and I also fully understand your frustration, but do calm down, please.
  13. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    VoIP was another reason I suggested this. If it were to be implemented in this way, the attempted KOS rule would need a clause detailing `warning shots` as initiation. Plus this should only be attempted if you have valid cover and range from the stalking party, so if you were to be immediately killed after firing warning shots, it could be argued you were either unlucky in cover or had NVFL if out of cover (I'd be alright with this, personally). The fall back team, I do and don't like that idea because obviously it leaves at least part of your team in a difficult position and, again, it could be argued NVFL to put yourself in that position. Don't remember where it was but a report resolution recently stated that its really up to you to look after your character and not put yourself in disadvantageous situations even if you have trusted group members suitably covering you from a different position but that's just a snippet from memory that seems applicable here.
  14. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    Another reason, similarly to Misty's, why I posted this. In a realistic situation, a smaller group can use hiding, cover and ambush to level the playing field against a larger group, just as you could in regular DayZ too but, due to the need for valid initiation and the lack of ways to initiate, the smaller group would end up giving away their advantage by letting the enemy get close and giving away their position by initiating. Without these two advantages, it can be argued that the smaller group would have NVFL due to initiating at a severe disadvantage. Pretty much most of the reason I suggested this. There could be other ways but `warning shot initiation` was just the first thing I came up with.
  15. Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

    Fair enough, I get that. This suggestion obviously needs a lot of work and talking about if it were to be refined into anything rule-worthy at all, which is why I was hoping for people to discuss it, maybe give ways that it could potentially work if they had any ideas themselves. Thanks for the reply, your pointing out of the reasoning behind the current initiation rules is definitely a valid counterpoint and I'll take that into account if I keep thinking about it.
×